Gasoline prices have gone through the roof.

Outrage over these fuel price rises -- rises attributed to two recent oil refinery accidents in Northern California -- has obscured a much more significant fact: both of these plants, like many environmentally dangerous and offensive facilities, are located in or near low-income communities mainly inhabited by people of color. Residents of the flat-land areas of Contra Costa County, where these accidents happened, bore the brunt of these mishaps. Unlike their wealthier and whiter neighbors in the hills they are much more prone to find themselves living near toxic waste, freeways, smokestacks, landfills, and air and water polluting industries.

The Environmental Justice Movement

This persistent and widespread inequity has spawned hundreds of local, state, national, and international organizations and activists that array themselves under the banner of the "Environmental Justice Movement." The Movement's proponents, in the words of Irwin Weintraub, author of Environmental Racism; An Annotated Bibliography, argue that "on paper, our environmental laws and regulations seek to indiscriminately improve existing conditions. In practice people of color are heavily burdened with the spoils (sic) of civilization.... Communities inhabited mainly by African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, Asians, migrant farm workers, and the working poor...are particularly vulnerable because they are perceived as weak and passive citizens who will not fight back against the poisoning of their neighborhoods in fear that it may jeopardize jobs and economic survival."

Environmental justice received a big boost in the early 1990s when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported that "communities of color and low-income populations experience higher than average exposures to...environmental pollution." The EPA study provided the basis for an executive order signed by President Clinton in 1994 that required federal agencies to take environmental justice into account when analysis is mandated under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

California Legislation

In California, efforts to address environmental justice issues date back almost a decade to three similar bills offered in 1991, 1992, and again in 1994 that prohibited approval of "potentially high-impact development project(s)" without submission of "project site demographics." Two of these efforts were vetoed and one lost on the Senate floor.

Four bills introduced during the 1997-98 session were more ambitious, requiring not just reporting but actually attempting to control and plan for environmental impacts on human communities. Bills by former Senators Diane Watson (D., Los Angeles) and Barbara Lee (D., Oakland) attempted to avoid the inequitable siting of waste facilities. Another Watson bill and legislation authored by Senator Hilda Solis (D., El Monte) asked state agencies to develop and implement environmental justice strategies. Legislation by then Assembly Member, now Senator Martha Escutia (D., Montebello), would have created environmental justice criteria for the awarding of state grants and loans. Three of these measures were vetoed; the other was withdrawn by its author.

Even more comprehensive legislation has been introduced this year and stands a good chance of enactment. SB 89 (Martha Escutia, D., Montebello) requires the Secretary for Environmental Protection to convene a multi-agency "Working Group on Environmental Justice" by April 1, 2000. Each agency represented in the group would conduct hearings, solicit public comment, and compile data with the goal of creating an "environmental justice strategy" that would insure that none of their "programs, policies, and activities" would exclude or discriminate against anyone "because of their race, culture, or income level."

SB 115 (Hilda Solis, D., El Monte) would have broader impact than SB 89, mandating that all state agencies make environmental justice part of their mission and using changes to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines as a means "for public agencies to identify and mitigate disproportionately high and adverse environmental effects of projects on minority populations and low-income populations." This bill would require state agencies to add environmental justice to the list of considerations to take into account when preparing Environmental Impact Reports (EIR).

SB 89 has the support of one major corporate interest, ARCO, as well as the American Lung Association, California Nurses Association, Planning and Conversation League, and Sierra Club. The bill is opposed by the California Association of Realtors (CAR), who often object to limits on the rights of private property owners. SB 115 has no business support but otherwise has the same supporters as SB 89 plus California League of Conservation Voters, two cities (South El Monte and La Puente), a statewide association (Latino Children's Action Council) and a neighborhood association (Hacienda Heights Improvement Association). Opposition to Solis' bill comes from CAR and two other powerful lobbies. The first of these is the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance, a coalition of business and labor interests founded by former Governor Pat Brown and currently chaired by Mike Roos, former Speaker Pro Tempore and Majority Leader of the California State Assembly during a portion of Willie Brown's speakership. Also opposed to SB 115 is the Western States Petroleum Association.

As we go to press, both bills have cleared their first committees and are likely to be amended so as not to be in conflict with each other. Their prospects for passage by the legislature and support from the governor are uncertain. Support letters to every member of the Senate and the Assembly and to the Governor will be needed to push these bills through.

Support from the Attorney General

A likely ally is new Attorney General Bill Lockyer who gave his outspoken support to environmental justice in his inaugural address ("whether children are injured by pollution of the water they drink or the air they breathe, we must and will chose justice" and in a later speech ("we can't {allow} the garbage dumps and power plants and emitters of toxic pollution to {be located} where poor people live. That form of regulation is going to get scrutiny in California."

-Ken Larsen

Though no one has been drafted into the armed services since 1973, federal law still requires U.S. male residents to register with the Military Selective Service System within 30 days of their 18th birthday. Registration nationally is 92 percent of men ages 18 -25 (registration is not required after age 26), but California's rate is one of the lowest in the nation, at 67 percent.

This situation has prompted the Selective Service System to work at the state level to seek additional penalties for non-registrants, even though resistance to registration is already heavily criminalized and sanctioned. Failure to register is a felony, punishable by fines up to $250,000 and imprisonment up to five years, and non-registrants are ineligible for state and federal student financial aid, job training, and many forms of government employment.

So far this year, Selective Service has initiated two bills that propose to use the powers of the state to bring non-registrants into line.

SB 1266 (Pete Knight, R., Palmdale) originally would have prevented non-registrants from graduating from high school, mandated a Selective Service registrar on every high schools campus, and added a Selective Service component to the required curriculum for high school American Government and civics courses. Under pressure from FCL, ACLU, teachers and school administrators, anti-draft groups, and many concerned Californians, the bill was heavily amended in its first committee. The link between high school graduation and registration was dropped completely and the other provisions were made optional rather than mandatory.

AB 1436 (Mike Briggs, R., Fresno) would prohibit state agencies, including the California State University, from employing males ages 18 to 26 who have not complied with the registration requirements of the Selective Service Act. This bill has passed the Assembly s public employment and veteran s affairs committees, and is now being held in the Appropriations Committee.

FCL Newsletter readers are urged to write their Assembly Members to request a no vote on AB 1436. Selective Service registration is irrelevant to job performance and, furthermore, AB 1436 would deprive potential state workers (including CSU students whose campus jobs may be key to their education) of employment solely on on the basis of their conscientious religious beliefs. In addition, AB 1436 passes on to the state and its taxpayers responsibility for enforcing a controversial law that was made in Washington, not Sacramento.

-Ken Larsen

A Wall Street Journal article by conservative Princeton University professor John DiIulio Jr. gives hope that jail and prison construction in this country can soon come to a halt. DiIulio has published extensively, usually in support of incarceration as a necessary response to crime. His declaration that, with close to two million people now in custody, it is "time for policy makers to change focus, aiming for zero prison growth," jolted many an observer.

DiIulio joins a growing number of authorities who recognize that spending on prisons has crowded out funds for other proven crime reduction strategies, and that corrections' share of the criminal justice budget has grown too large. He suggests that the path to zero prison growth can be paved by taking five policy steps:
1) repeal mandatory drug sentencing laws and offer better drug treatment;
2) improve community corrections programs;
3) end federal intervention in crime policy;
4) adopt a restorative approach to justice; and,
5) introduce effective juvenile crime prevention programs.

It is easy for academics, almost a quirk of theirs, to propose programs without recognizing that governments can be glacially slow to put them in place. Legislators are given to stalling, awaiting signs of a public consensus or mandate before acting. Such delays damage people who are caught in the system while corrections bureaucracies who supervise prisons and jails use overcrowding to justify continued expansion of their facilities.

Timing is everything. To us this is a good, a right time for the public to "just say no" to more prisons and jails.

Our argument for a sea change in state prison construction practices and policies rests on the fact that that fewer than half of state prison inmates are sentenced for violent offenses. (See chart.) In recent years, convictions for vehicle theft and petty theft with a prior, taken together, have resulted in more prison commitments than kidnaping, rape, and murder combined. Drug-related offenses have resulted in four times as many prison sentences as convictions for robbery.

Also relevant to our case is the added fact that many of the individuals in prison are serving just a few months as a result of a parole violation. The median length of a parole violator's term is under six months. The majority of state prison inmates now in custody will be released on parole within the next two years.

In its 1998 report on prisons, California's Little Hoover Commission advanced two suggestions that could balance prison populations with available facilities: first, improve community- based corrections programs so that the influx of new offenders to state facilities is cut, and second, provide better parole services in order to reduce the number of parolees who are returned to prison for violations of the conditions of parole.

To the extent that local probation departments and drug courts can attend to offenders who steal vehicles or who commit petty theft, state prisons can then focus on more serious offenders. Because most offenses are drug or alcohol-related, it is significant and encouraging that more than 70 drug courts are now operating in the state. These courts can bring about a long- term reduction in the chances that a petty offender will wind up doing hard time in a state prison cell.

Unhappily, when compared to other states, too many California inmates fail to complete parole. The success rate for parolees in this state hovers around 30%, whereas New York has close to a 70% and Illinois a 60% success rate. The entire system needs to raise its expectations which are mired in the self- fulfilling belief that parolees are bound to fail. The most promising options being pursued is improved job development services for inmates released on parole. Parolees able to move quickly and successfully into paid work are much less likely to return and overcrowd prisons.

Legislators are also pressing for expanded prison-based drug and alcohol addiction treatment programs. Such efforts, together with effective after-care in the parolee's community show considerable promise for improving the parole success rate. The lessons learned in these efforts need to be applied widely because 80% of offenses are related to alcohol and drug problems. And, it is far less expensive to address addictions than to keep locking substance abusers up.

California has anticipated a few of DiIulio's recommendations, and its crime rate has been dropping. To overcome the momentum of the prison-builders, it will be important to improve on existing alternatives to incarceration, and to convince the public that prison construction has long since passed the point of diminishing returns.

You can help by letting your representatives know that you endorse taking steps that will reduce jail and prison populations, and that you oppose the construction of new medium- maximum security institutions that would be authorized by the following bills:

SB 904 (Jim Costa, D., Fresno) would authorize a new prison at Delano. This measure proposes the most costly form of financing for the proposed facilities--revenue bonds. The use of such funding avoids exposing the proposal to possible disapproval by voters. The Legislative Analyst is critical of the use of revenue bonds due to their higher interest, administration, and insurance costs. (See the 1995 report on uses and costs of lease-purchase bonds: http://www.lao.ca.gov/sc050395.html on the Internet.) FCL OPPOSES. The bill is in the Senate Public Safety Committee.

AB 326 (Bill Leonard, R., San Bernardino) would place more than $4 billion in general obligation prison bonds on the ballot. Six new medium-maximum security state prisons account for $2 billion in cost; local adult jails would receive $1.9 billion; juvenile facilities $200 million. The price tag for state prisons in this measure is higher than that for any previous prison bond measure, even though there are doubts whether voters want to fund more prisons. Since 1980, prison and youth authority bond measures passed as follows:
1981 authorized $495 million
1984 authorized $300 million
1986 authorized $500 million
1988 authorized $817 million
1990 authorized $450 million

This measure is supported by the California Peace Officers' Association, the California Police Chiefs' Association, the California State Association of Counties, the California State Sheriffs' Association, and the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department. FCL OPPOSES. The bill is now in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

-Steve Birdlebough

Many California communities and agencies have taken direct action to prevent violence. An Inventory of California Violence Prevention Programs, describing 30 specific violence prevention programs in California, is now available. Many of the programs use existing resources, and are not costly to replicate in other communities. The 30 programs range from extended-day schools and neighborhood programs, to community-wide programs and criminal justice agency preventive programs.

Evidence is accumulating that most violence can be prevented. An extensive study by the University of Maryland Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, published in February 1997 by the US Department of Justice reviews programs which have demonstrated that it is cost-effective to intervene with violence-prone young people and adults before they commit violent acts, to develop non-violent options, skills, and attitudes. When this is done, and individuals develop a variety of strategies for meeting their needs, society becomes safer.

The inventory is produced by the Friends Committee on Legislation (FCL) Education Fund. FCL would like to identify additional programs for possible inclusion in an expanded inventory. Please send requests for printed copies of the Inventory of California Violence Prevention Programs (a donation of $5 is appreciated to defray costs), or information regarding violence prevention programs to Violence Prevention Inventory at the FCL mailing address or e-mail address shown on the back page of this newsletter. If you are sending information, please include the program name, address, phone number and (if known) the name of a contact person for each violence prevention program. Additional information about the type of service provided, the population served and other descriptive details would be helpful.

To view and print the Inventory of California Violence Prevention Programs from the FCL website, see: www.webcom.com/peace/PEACTREE/fcl/edufund/violprog.html.

To view and print the Inventory of California Violence Prevention Programs from the FCL website, go to: www.webcom.com/peace/PEACTREE/fcl/edufund/violprog.html.

-Diane Lockhart

Last summer, the FCL Newsletter reported that "California is probably the worst state in the nation for low-income renters." Since then, further research has substantiated that claim.

Research Cites Housing Crunch

A report issued this March by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) found that strong real estate markets are pushing rents beyond the means of many low-income people. The HUD study identified Los Angeles as the city with the longest waiting period and most competition for Section 8 rent vouchers, which are used by needy families to rent apartments. Within a few months of reopening Section 8 eligibility in Los Angeles -- new applicants were not allowed from 1990-1998 -- the waiting list grew from 8,000 to 153,000 applicants. Some applicants are expected to wait as long as 10 years before receiving subsidized housing.

New Political Climate

Despite the bleak conditions facing low-income renters, there are some reasons for optimism. The first cause for hope comes from Governor Gray Davis and State Treasurer Phil Angelides. Both of these newly-elected officials moved quickly to put affordable housing on their agendas.

A former chair of the Assembly Housing Committee, Davis put an affordable housing and homeless shelter package into his first state budget proposal. His predecessor had vetoed many of the same ideas.

Angelides, a real estate developer, former state Democratic Party chair and long-time low-cost housing advocate, has repeatedly told advocacy groups and the press that, as he explained to The Sacramento Bee, "I want to focus my efforts on neighborhoods and communities that have been left behind. I believe we can never succeed if we have big pockets of despair. So much can be accomplished with our tools where we choose to locate affordable housing, how we choose to make home ownership loans."

The second reason to think that housing conditions may improve is the wide array of legislation introduced this session that is designed to alleviate many of the specific problems that contribute to the state's housing crisis.

Below is a list of key housing bills and the problems they address. An outpouring of support from affordable housing proponents is essential to secure their passage.

ACTION ITEMS

Housing for the Mentally Ill

AB 34 (Darrell Steinberg, D., Sacramento) provides planning and expansion grants to counties for adult mental health programs. Requires mental health service standards to be more comprehensive, addressing issues such as access to medications, substance abuse services, housing assistance, and vocational rehabilitation services. FCL SUPPORTS.

Permanent Funding for Low-Income Housing

AB 97 (Tom Torlakson, D., Antioch) extends sunset date and increases by $15 million annually tax credit for low-income housing. FCL SUPPORTS.

Housing and Shelter Construction and Preservation

AB 398 (Carole Migden, D., San Francisco) housing bond spot bill. Will cover housing for seniors, disabled, self-help, welfare-to-work, farmworkers as well as support home ownership, rehabilitation and code enforcement. FCL SUPPORTS.

SB 510 (Richard Alarcon, D., Los Angeles) Senate version of AB 398. FCL SUPPORTS.

AB 1396 (Alan Lowenthal, D., Long Beach) creates California Housing Preservation Program and authorizes loans to help retain and increase affordable housing. FCL SUPPORTS.

SB 633 (Byron Sher, D., Palo Alto) provides capital funds to communities for acquisition, construction, and rehabilitation of alternate facilities to diminish use of National Guard Armories for winter homeless shelters. FCL SUPPORTS.

SB 948 (Richard Alarcon, D., Los Angeles) Preserves and expands affordable housing supply through adjustments in laws concerning local land use zoning and planning. FCL SUPPORTS

Corporate Investment Responsibility

AB 869 (Fred Keeley, D., Boulder Creek) requires insurers to invest in affordable housing and economic development. FCL SUPPORTS.

AB 1080 (Antonio Villaraigosa, D., Los Angeles) creates Community Reinvestment Tax Credit to promote corporate investment in low-income communities. FCL SUPPORTS.

Housing Discrimination

AB 1001 (Antonio Villaraigosa, D., Los Angeles) establishes sexual orientation as an unlawful basis for discrimination in employment and housing. FCL SUPPORTS.

Farmworker Housing

AB 1505 (Denise Moreno Ducheny, D., San Diego) expands allowable units of farmworker housing on rural lands and stops communities from using state environmental codes to block construction of farmworker housing. FCL SUPPORTS.

AB 1580 (Dean Florez, D., Fresno) requires Department of Housing and Community Development to develop strategy and task force to increase and improve farm worker housing unit. FCL SUPPORTS.

Rental Assistance

SB 781 (Jackie Speier, D., Hillsborough) provides rental assistance to families transitioning from welfare to work in high living cost counties. FCL SUPPORTS.

-Ken Larsen

The Friends Committee on Legislation gratefully acknowledges receipt of a bequest of nearly $9,000 from the estate of Dorothy Michaelis who died in a Brethren Retirement Home in McPherson, Kansas late last year.

Dorothy Michaelis taught for a number of years in Southern California before moving to Kansas. She was buried in Whittier, California.

We greatly appreciate her considerateness in bestowing this gift for our work and we hope that her generosity may inspire others to follow her thoughtful, timely, and immensely welcome example.